Posted on: December 16, 2016
jimplunder
Jeux: 343 Avis: 12
Not my favorite
Civ III has a few things that I loved and many things that I hated. For starters, the game always had resource balance issues and map seeding issues. If I played on a Pangea map, I would always get stuck on a small island by myself. If I played continents, I got stuck in a place that had no resources. I had no iron, no saltpeter, and no rubber, so I was always attacking with spearmen when they had swordsmen and musketmen, and had to wait to get riflemen before I could become competitive militarily, if only for a short while when the AI could build infantry. This just created an ultimate sense of frustration that any game I played was unbalanced in the AI's favor. The things I absolutely loved (that I wish they still did in modern Civ games) were palace building and leader portraits. Building your palace was amazing. Creating a single style or mix-and-matching was awesome. It was an improvement over the Throne Room of Civ II. I also loved that the leader portraits during diplomacy evolved with the tech age they were in. For example, if you were in the ancient era, all the leaders were wearing animal skins. In the classical age, they wore togas. In medieval era, they wore armor, and so on and so forth. It created a unique and immersive experience that Firaxis has not matched since, even with the "realistic" avatars in Civ V and the cartoony realism in Civ VI. I wish that Firaxis would take the time to put in little improvements like these into their newer Civ games. All in all, I don't give Civ III a high score, although I can see why many people liked it. On that very rare occasion when I did get a good starting spot with balanced resources, the game was a lot of fun, almost as much fun as my penultimate Civ game, Civ II.
Trouvez-vous ce commentaire utile ?
